Description of problem: Unsuspended my laptop, and saw this alert. SELinux is preventing abrt-hook-ccpp from using the 'sigchld' accesses on a process. ***** Plugin catchall (100. confidence) suggests ************************** If you believe that abrt-hook-ccpp should be allowed sigchld access on processes labeled kernel_t by default. Then you should report this as a bug. You can generate a local policy module to allow this access. Do allow this access for now by executing: # grep abrt-hook-ccpp /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mypol # semodule -i mypol.pp Additional Information: Source Context system_u:system_r:NetworkManager_t:s0 Target Context system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 Target Objects Unknown [ process ] Source abrt-hook-ccpp Source Path abrt-hook-ccpp Port <Unknown> Host (removed) Source RPM Packages Target RPM Packages Policy RPM selinux-policy-3.13.1-128.6.fc22.noarch Selinux Enabled True Policy Type targeted Enforcing Mode Enforcing Host Name (removed) Platform Linux (removed) 4.1.2-200.fc22.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jul 15 20:12:12 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 Alert Count 4 First Seen 2015-07-21 13:20:59 EDT Last Seen 2015-07-21 13:22:03 EDT Local ID 279ce4ec-3409-40ba-a0bc-e945b800bc8a Raw Audit Messages type=AVC msg=audit(1437499323.704:878): avc: denied { sigchld } for pid=17685 comm="abrt-hook-ccpp" scontext=system_u:system_r:NetworkManager_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 tclass=process permissive=0 Hash: abrt-hook-ccpp,NetworkManager_t,kernel_t,process,sigchld Version-Release number of selected component: selinux-policy-3.13.1-128.6.fc22.noarch Additional info: reporter: libreport-2.6.1 hashmarkername: setroubleshoot kernel: 4.1.2-200.fc22.x86_64 type: libreport
Hi, Please run and attach: # ps -efZ Thank you
Created attachment 1059896 [details] Output of `ps -efZ` Hi, I just had a similar SELinux alert preventing abrt-hook-cpp from accessing sigchld (many times in a row. I had the alert already 11 times in like 15 min). The only diference is that Jared Smith's alert seem to originate from the network manager, and mine from the Mozilla flash plugin (v. 11.2.202.491 updated yesterday from Adobe website). Below the alert details: ---------------------------------------------------------- SELinux is preventing abrt-hook-ccpp from using the sigchld access on a process. ***** Plugin mozplugger (99.1 confidence) suggests ************************ If you want to use the plugin package Then you must turn off SELinux controls on the Firefox plugins. Do # setsebool -P unconfined_mozilla_plugin_transition 0 ***** Plugin catchall (1.81 confidence) suggests ************************** If you believe that abrt-hook-ccpp should be allowed sigchld access on processes labeled kernel_t by default. Then you should report this as a bug. You can generate a local policy module to allow this access. Do allow this access for now by executing: # grep abrt-hook-ccpp /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mypol # semodule -i mypol.pp Additional Information: Source Context unconfined_u:unconfined_r:mozilla_plugin_t:s0-s0:c 0.c1023 Target Context system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 Target Objects Unknown [ process ] Source abrt-hook-ccpp Source Path abrt-hook-ccpp Port <Unknown> Host darkmarmot Source RPM Packages Target RPM Packages Policy RPM selinux-policy-3.13.1-128.8.fc22.noarch Selinux Enabled True Policy Type targeted Enforcing Mode Enforcing Host Name darkmarmot Platform Linux darkmarmot 4.1.3-200.fc22.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jul 22 19:51:58 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 Alert Count 9 First Seen 2015-08-06 13:56:26 CEST Last Seen 2015-08-06 14:08:40 CEST Local ID da77c24a-0e3e-44a1-9b86-aee1492d7cd2 Raw Audit Messages type=AVC msg=audit(1438862920.226:639): avc: denied { sigchld } for pid=5332 comm="abrt-hook-ccpp" scontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:mozilla_plugin_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tcontext=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 tclass=process permissive=0 Hash: abrt-hook-ccpp,mozilla_plugin_t,kernel_t,process,sigchld ---------------------------------------------------------- Attached is the output of `ps -efZ` which you were asking to the reporter (and where I saw that the mozilla_plugin refered in the alert is likely Flash, though PID are different, but it may just have respawned a different process). Should these accesses be granted or is there a potential issue with Flash?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1245477 ***